Paul F Pinsky1, Amanda Black2, Sarah E Daugherty3, Robert Hoover2, Howard Parnes1, Zachary L Smith4, Scott Eggener5, Gerald L Andriole4, Sonja I Berndt2. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, DC. 4. Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 5. University of Chicago School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial assessed the effect of screening with prostate-specific antigen and a digital rectal examination on prostate cancer mortality. Another endpoint of interest was the burden of total metastatic disease. METHODS:All men in PLCO were assessed for metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis; men with clinical stage I/II disease were assessed for metastatic progression. The rate of total metastatic disease was defined as metastases found either at diagnosis or through progression divided by person-years (PYs) of follow-up for all men in the trial. Metastatic progression rates were computed among men with clinical stage I/II prostate cancer. Survival among men with metastases at diagnosis was compared with survival among men with metastatic progression. RESULTS: Among 38,340 men in the intervention arm and 38,343 men in the control arm in PLCO, there were 4974 and 4699 prostate cancer cases, respectively. The rates of total metastatic disease were 4.72 and 4.83 per 10,000 PYs in the intervention and control arms, respectively (rate ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81-1.18). The rates of metastatic progression among men with clinical stage I/II prostate cancer were 43.7 and 50.5 per 10,000 PYs in the intervention and control arms, respectively (P = .30). Prostate cancer-specific 5- and 10-year survival rates were significantly worse for men with metastatic progression (24% and 19%, respectively) than men with metastases at diagnosis (40% and 26%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Rates of total metastatic disease and metastatic progression were similar across arms in PLCO. Survival was worse for men with metastatic progression in comparison with those with metastatic disease at diagnosis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial assessed the effect of screening with prostate-specific antigen and a digital rectal examination on prostate cancer mortality. Another endpoint of interest was the burden of total metastatic disease. METHODS: All men in PLCO were assessed for metastatic prostate cancer at diagnosis; men with clinical stage I/II disease were assessed for metastatic progression. The rate of total metastatic disease was defined as metastases found either at diagnosis or through progression divided by person-years (PYs) of follow-up for all men in the trial. Metastatic progression rates were computed among men with clinical stage I/II prostate cancer. Survival among men with metastases at diagnosis was compared with survival among men with metastatic progression. RESULTS: Among 38,340 men in the intervention arm and 38,343 men in the control arm in PLCO, there were 4974 and 4699 prostate cancer cases, respectively. The rates of total metastatic disease were 4.72 and 4.83 per 10,000 PYs in the intervention and control arms, respectively (rate ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81-1.18). The rates of metastatic progression among men with clinical stage I/II prostate cancer were 43.7 and 50.5 per 10,000 PYs in the intervention and control arms, respectively (P = .30). Prostate cancer-specific 5- and 10-year survival rates were significantly worse for men with metastatic progression (24% and 19%, respectively) than men with metastases at diagnosis (40% and 26%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of total metastatic disease and metastatic progression were similar across arms in PLCO. Survival was worse for men with metastatic progression in comparison with those with metastatic disease at diagnosis.
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; Amanda Blacka; Barnett S Kramer; Anthony Miller; Philip C Prorok; Christine Berg Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Sigrid Carlsson; Teuvo Tammela; Liisa Määttänen; Anssi Auvinen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Franz Recker; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Douglas K Owens; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; Mark Ebell; John W Epling; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Albert L Siu; Chien-Wen Tseng Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-05-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Richard M Martin; Jenny L Donovan; Emma L Turner; Chris Metcalfe; Grace J Young; Eleanor I Walsh; J Athene Lane; Sian Noble; Steven E Oliver; Simon Evans; Jonathan A C Sterne; Peter Holding; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Peter Brindle; Naomi J Williams; Elizabeth M Hill; Siaw Yein Ng; Jessica Toole; Marta K Tazewell; Laura J Hughes; Charlotte F Davies; Joanna C Thorn; Elizabeth Down; George Davey Smith; David E Neal; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; Kelly Yu; Barnett S Kramer; Amanda Black; John K Gohagan; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Gerald L Andriole Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan Halabi; William Kevin Kelly; Hua Ma; Haojin Zhou; Nicole C Solomon; Karim Fizazi; Catherine M Tangen; Mark Rosenthal; Daniel P Petrylak; Maha Hussain; Nicholas J Vogelzang; Ian M Thompson; Kim N Chi; Johann de Bono; Andrew J Armstrong; Mario A Eisenberger; Abderrahim Fandi; Shaoyi Li; John C Araujo; Christopher J Logothetis; David I Quinn; Michael J Morris; Celestia S Higano; Ian F Tannock; Eric J Small Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Liisa Määttänen; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Matti Hakama; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Gunnar Aus; Andreas Huber; Theo H van der Kwast; Ron H N van Schaik; Harry J de Koning; Sue M Moss; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 79.321